RESEARCH ARTICLE
Men and women differ in their perception of
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111
OPEN ACCESS
Citation: Garcı́a-González J, Forcén P, Jimenez-
Sanchez M (2019) Men and women differ in their
perception of gender bias in research institutions.
PLoS ONE 14(12): e0225763. https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pone.0225763
Editor: Luı́s A. Nunes Amaral, Northwestern
University, UNITED STATES
Received: April 28, 2019
Accepted: November 12, 2019
Published: December 5, 2019
Copyright: © 2019 Garcı́a-González et al. This is an
open access article distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original
author and source are credited.
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are
within the paper and its Supporting Information
files.
Funding: The authors received no specific funding
for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared
that no competing interests exist.
PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763 December 5, 2019
gender bias in research institutions
Judit Garcı́a-González1,2*, Patricia Forcén1, Maria Jimenez-Sanchez ID1,3*
1 Wom = n Equity & Research Committee, Society of Spanish Researchers in the United Kingdom (SRUK/
CERU), International House, 12 Constance Street, London, United Kingdom, 2 School of Biological and
Chemical Sciences, Queen Mary, University of London, London, United Kingdom, 3 Department of Basic and
Clinical Neuroscience, Maurice Wohl Clinical Neuroscience Institute, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology &
Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
* women@sruk.org.uk (JGG); maria.jimenez_sanchez@kcl.ac.uk (MJS)
Abstract
There is extensive evidence of gender inequality in research leading to insufficient represen-
tation of women in leadership positions. Numbers revealing a gender gap in research are
periodically reported by national and international institutions but data on perceptions of
gender equality within the research community are scarce. In the present study, a question-
naire based on the British Athena Survey of Science, Engineering and Technology (ASSET
2016) was distributed among researchers working in Spain. Consistent with the original UK-
based study, women in research perceived a greater degree of gender inequality than men.
This difference was consistent from junior to senior positions, within public and private uni-
versities as well as research centres, and across all research disciplines. When responses
were compared with the existing UK-based questionnaire, researchers in Spain felt that
women and men are treated more equally in the workplace, yet they perceived their home
departments to be less supportive regarding matters of gender equality. The results of this
study provide clear evidence that men and women do not share the same perceptions of
gender equality in science and that their differing perceptions are relatively consistent
across two major European countries. The fact that men occupy the majority of senior posi-
tions while not perceiving the same inequality as women do, may be critical when it comes
to ensuring the fair ascent of women to senior positions in an academic system. These data
encourage the implementation of measures to ensure that both men and women are aware
of gender biases in research.
Introduction
Worldwide, women represent 53% of bachelor’s and master’s graduates. Parity drops at the
PhD level (43% women vs 57% men) and even more at postgraduate level, where only 28% of
research positions are occupied by women [1]. This gender gap is more noticeable at the senior
level, with a lower representation of women in leadership positions and consequently in deci-
sion- and policy-making. She Figures 2015, a report that investigates gender equality in
1 / 21
 Perception of gender bias in research institutions

research and innovation in Europe [2], showed that only 21% of grade A, top-level researchers
were women and, strikingly, numbers have not improved much from the 20% observed in
2010. In the Spanish academic system, the representation of women is nearly identical to that
of the rest of the EU (40.8% vs 41.0%), and women occupy 21.0% of senior positions in Spain
vs 20.9% in the EU [2,3].
Gender perceptions may influence women’s ascent to senior positions [4]. Women are per-
ceived as worse scientific leaders [5,6] and are stereotyped as not possessing the innate talent
that is required in some fields [7]. These and other gender stereotypes may explain why
women receive similar levels of research funding when they are judged on the quality of their
research but less funding when judged on the excellence of the researcher [8], are less fre-
quently invited to conferences [9,10], are less likely to be selected for scientific awards [11,12],
are less represented on editorial boards [13], their work is less likely to be cited [14], they have
less chances of being invited to participate in peer review [14,15], and they have a more
restricted access to influential networks [16]. In 2015, Handley et al reported that men do not
recognise the presence of gender bias in research to the same extent as women: when men and
women were asked to read an abstract from a study reporting gender bias in research, men
tended to evaluate this study less favourable, suggesting reluctance of men to acknowledge
gender bias. The gender difference was more prominent among academics working in science,
technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) [17]. Moreover, many women’s choices of
undergraduate discipline are dependent on the potential discrimination that is anticipated in
each field [18]. A lack of understanding of these issues, especially at the senior level, will likely
result in fewer measures put in place to tackle them. It is therefore necessary to understand
how gender biases are perceived by researchers in their workplace, and, importantly, whether
gender, seniority, research area and type of institution influence these perceptions. While
reports are published periodically to evaluate the current gender situation in science and its
evolution over the years [1–3,19], much less is known about researchers’ perceptions of gender
equality.
The Athena Survey of Science, Engineering and Technology (ASSET) 2016 [20] was
commissioned by The Royal Society, Royal Academy of Engineering, Royal Society of Biology
and The Academy of Medical Sciences and managed by the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU)
[21] to assess experiences, expectations and perceptions in science, technology, engineering,
mathematics and medicine (STEMM) in academia in the United Kingdom (UK). The survey,
which expanded from previous iterations of the survey, had 4,869 respondents and covered six
aspects of British academics’ working life: perception of gender equality, recruitment, job and
career, caring responsibilities, training and leadership, and promotion and development. On
average, men felt that the department where they worked was more committed to gender
equality than women did. Also, although differences were relatively small, women perceived
that men had an advantage regarding the allocation of tasks and resources related to career
development, while men’s perceptions on this topic were more neutral.
In Spain, while public organisations such as the Spanish Research Council (CSIC) and the
Women and Science Unit of the Spanish Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities
publish periodic reports of statistics regarding women in research [3,19,22], to the best of our
knowledge, there has not been a formal assessment of perceptions on gender equality. More-
over, policies to encourage and recognise commitment to advancing the careers of women
have not yet being implemented systematically, in contrast to the UK, where charters such as
Athena SWAN (Scientific Women’s Academic Network) [23] have been active for more than
ten years. The present study seeks to understand gender perceptions and experiences among
researchers in Spanish academic institutions, and to compare these with the perceptions of
researchers working in their British counterparts. A questionnaire with items adapted from

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763 December 5, 2019 2 / 21

 Perception of gender bias in research institutions

the ASSET 2016 [20] (S1 Table) was distributed among researchers working in both public
and private universities and public research institutes in Spain [24]. The effects of respondents’
gender, seniority, type of institution and research area on their perceptions of gender equality
were systematically assessed, and the results of this survey were then compared with those of
the ASSET 2016. Data from our survey show that men and women differ in the perceptions of
gender equality and that findings are consistent across research areas, type of institutions and
researchers’ positions. Our findings largely agree with those obtained from respondents in the
UK, while highlighting differences in how researchers in Spain perceive less institutional sup-
port for gender-related issues.

Methods
Participants
A total of 2,619 individuals were contacted via email through their institutions or through the
Society of Spanish Researchers in the UK (SRUK/CERU). Of these, we analysed the data pro-
vided by 2,255 respondents that were currently working in Spain and discarded the data from
individuals that did not reach the end of the survey. To ensure that our sampling method did
not introduce a non-response bias in our analyses, we compared responses from those that did
not complete the survey with those that completed it and found no differences between them
(S2 Table for women and S3 Table for men). 10 individuals younger than 21 were discounted.
While this survey included the opportunity for respondents to indicate that they would prefer
not to disclose their gender (n = 11), the data presented are limited to those respondents who
identified themselves as either men or women. The final sample for analysis contained 1,295
adults from 63 institutions (see S4 Table for a complete list of the institutions represented in
the survey), of which 36% (n = 469) were men and 64% (n = 826) were women. For more
details of the sample used in the study, see Table 1 and S1 Appendix.

Research ethics
The data in this study were analyzed anonymously. Data were collected through the website
surveymonkey.com. At the beginning of the survey, all participants were informed about the
purpose of the questionnaire and the anonymisation of their data. Responses were obtained
between 5 February 2018 and 4 May 2018. Participants were given the option of not respond-
ing at each question. We only included data from participants older than 21 years old.

Measures
The present report is part of a wider survey to explore the perceptions and experiences of gen-
der equality of academics working in STEMM, as well as in the arts, humanities, social sci-
ences, business and law (AHSSBL) in Spain. Items included in the original survey were
adapted from the Athena Survey of Science, Engineering and Technology (ASSET), managed
by the Equality Challenge Unit [20]. The survey was circulated in English to ensure that the
questions had the same meaning in both countries. In this study, only the responses relevant
to the perception of gender biases were analysed. A description of the survey questions that
were adapted from the ASSET survey and analysed in this study, their variable names and
scales used is provided in S1 Table.
The measurement of gender equality in research is multidimensional. In this case, two
dimensions of gender equality were explored: perceptions of gender equality in departments
where respondents work and perceptions of gender equality in the allocation of tasks and
resources. Perceptions of gender equality in departments were assessed using six statements such

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763 December 5, 2019 3 / 21

 Perception of gender bias in research institutions

Table 1. Sample characteristics and key frequencies.

Total N = 1,295 (%)
Gender Position
Women 826 (63.8%) Senior Researcher
Men 469 (36.2%) Head of school/division/dep 30 (2.3%)
Centre director 16 (1.2%)
Age Professor 132 (10.3%)
21 to 25 95 (7.3%) Emeritus professor 9 (0.8%)
26 to 30 180 (13.9%) Reader 189 (14.5%)
31 to 35 151 (11.7%) Senior Lecturer 84 (6.4%)
36 to 40 162 (12.5%) Group Leader 96 (7.4%)
41 to 45 155 (11.9%) Intermediate career researcher
46 to 50 191 (14.7%) Lecturer 123 (9.6%)
51 to 55 174 (13.4%) Associate lecturer/ Teaching 48 (3.7%)
56 to 60 108 (8.3%) assistant
61 to 65 54 (4.2%) Research Fellow 41 (3.1%)
66 and over 25 (1.9%) Early Career Researcher
Postdoctoral Fellow 70 (5.4%)
Research Area Postdoctoral Research 82 (6.3%)
Biological sciences 378 (28.9%) Associate
Medical & Health 196 (15.0%) Research Assistant 45 (3.5%)
Sciences Research Technician 15 (1.2%)
Business & Finance 29 (2.2%) Research Student
Chemical Sciences 83 (6.4%) PhD student 258 (20.0%)
Earth sciences 30 (2.3%) Master student 3 (0.2%)
Engineering & computing 164 (12.6%) Undergraduate student 3 (0.02%)
Humanities & Arts 87 (6.7%) Other 51 (3.9%)
Law 28 (2.1%)
Maths & physical 155 (11.9%) Type of working institution
Sciences Public University 691 (53.4%)
Social sciences 145 (11.1%) Private University 136 (10.5%)
Research centres 342 (26.4%)
Others 126 (9.7%)
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.t001

as “My department is committed to promoting gender equality” or “My department is (or

would be) responsive to concerns about gender equality”. Each statement was rated using a
7-point scale ranging from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 7 =“Strongly agree”. Perceptions of gender
equality in the allocation of tasks and resources were assessed using 15 items, such as “Invita-
tions to conferences”, “Appointments to editorships” or “Allocation of teaching”. Each item
was evaluated using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 = “Much easier for a woman” to 7 = “Much
easier for a man” (S1 Table).

Analyses
We performed Principal Component Analysis (PCA) to confirm that the two previously-
described dimensions of gender equality are present in the Spanish research system. PCA cal-
culates the correlating variation among a set of observed variables (items) to identify underly-
ing latent variables (dimensions/constructs) by obtaining the covariance matrix of the
variables, and then its eigenvectors and the corresponding eigenvalues. Cronbach’s alpha [25]

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763 December 5, 2019 4 / 21

 Perception of gender bias in research institutions

was used to examine the internal validity of the items for each component. To assess whether
respondents’ gender had a significant effect on their perceptions of gender equality, indepen-
dent samples t-tests were performed for each survey question and for the sum of all items
within each dimension. Effect sizes were assessed using Cohen’s d [26], where 0.2, 0.5, and 0.8
indicated a small, medium and large effect, respectively. To evaluate the effects of research
area, position, type of institution, as well as the interaction between those and the respondents’
gender, two-way ANOVA tests were used (three ANOVA tests were run, one for each factor).
Mean, standard deviation and sample sizes for male and female respondents in the UK were
obtained from ASSET 2016 and t-tests were carried out separately to compare each question
and gender group.
To account for multiple testing when exploring group differences between men and
women, a Bonferroni correction was applied based on 21 independent t-tests (one for each
question for the Spain based questionnaire) and significance was declared at a threshold of
0.002. For the comparison across countries, a Bonferroni correction was applied based on 38
independent t-tests (19 questions available in both countries stratified by male and female
respondents). In this case significance was declared at a threshold of 0.001. Analyses were
undertaken using Minitab v.17 and v.18 and R version 3.4.3.

Results
To assess how researchers working in Spain perceive gender equality, a survey adapted from
the ASSET 2016 in the UK, was distributed among researchers working in Spanish universities
and research centres. A total of 1,295 complete responses were collected from 63 institutions,
of which 36% (n = 469) were men and 64% (n = 826) were women. Respondents’ ages ranged
between 21 and 66 or over and represented all stages of the research and academic ladder
(Table 1). The survey was composed of two categories: perceptions of gender equality in depart-
ments and perceptions of gender equality in the allocation of tasks and resources. We first con-
firmed the existence of two defined categories among the questions by performing a principal
component analysis (PCA) and their internal reliability was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha.
With Cronbach’s alpha values ranging from 0.7 to 0.9, we confirmed that the items within
each component were closely related. These results are in line with the ASSET 2016 survey
structure, ensuring a reliable comparison between both countries (see S2 Appendix in support-
ing information and S1 Fig for details on the psychometric analyses).
We then assessed the impact that gender, position, research area and type of institution
may have on perceptions of gender equality in the Spanish academic system. T-tests and two-
way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were used to assess the effect of these factors as well as
the interaction between them and the respondents’ gender. In addition, responses were com-
pared with those from the ASSET 2016 to investigate potential differences in perceptions
across Spain and the UK.

Gender differences in perceptions of gender equality in departments

In the first part of the survey, a total of six items were used to evaluate how participants per-
ceived gender equality in their departments in terms of (1) leadership (assessing how well
women and men perceive women as leaders (Fig 1A)), (2) equality treatment (assessing whether
men and women are treated equally in their departments (Fig 1B)), and (3) promotion of gen-
der equality (investigating whether participants perceived that their departments have measures
in place to promote gender equality (Fig 1C)). Perceptions of gender equality in the respon-
dents’ department was overall lower for women, with average score across the six items close to
neutral (M = 4.44, SD = 1.93) compared to men, who perceived their departments are somewhat

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763 December 5, 2019 5 / 21

 Perception of gender bias in research institutions

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763 December 5, 2019 6 / 21

 Perception of gender bias in research institutions

Fig 1. Gender differences in perceptions of gender equality in the respondents’ departments. Graph shows the
distribution of responses by gender where responses ranged from 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 7 = “Strongly agree”. The neutral
value is 4 = “Neither agree nor disagree”. Sample sizes ranged from 1,287 to 1,293 respondents (n = 465 to 468 men and
n = 821 to 826 women). Sample sizes for each question are detailed in S6 Table.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.g001

committed to gender equality (M = 5.18, SD = 2.13) (p<0.002, S6 Table). The distribution of

responses for this category also showed that, despite the high variability in responses within
each gender, most of men responses were 6 = ‘Agree’ and 7 = ‘Strongly agree’ (that there is gen-
der equality in their departments), whereas women responses were more variable and a larger
percentage of them failed to perceive gender equality (1 = ‘Strongly disagree’, 2 = ‘Disagree’ and
3 = ‘Somehow disagree’) (Fig 1).
The largest gender differences were observed when participants were asked about leader-
ship perception (Fig 1A). Although both women and men mostly agreed with the statement
‘Women are perceived as good leaders by women’, there was a slight shift in the distribution of
responses towards a more negative perception by women (M = 5.05, SD = 2.26) than men
(M = 5.40, SD = 1.76). The difference between women and men’s perception was more striking
for the question “Women are perceived as good leaders by women”, which showed that
women felt that women’s leadership abilities are less recognised by men (M = 4.03, SD = 1.88)
(p<0.002, S6 Table).
When respondents were asked whether men and women receive equal treatment in their
departments (Fig 1B), 87% of men agreed (strongly agree/agree/somehow agree). In contrast,
women’s perceptions of equality were significantly lower and only a 69% agreed with that
statement, while 25% of them strongly disagreed, disagreed or somehow disagreed with the
equality of the treatment received. With an average of 6.05 (SD = 1.41) for men versus 5.06
(SD = 1.79) (p<0.002, S6 Table) for women, female researchers perceived less gender equality
in the treatment provided by their departments.
To evaluate whether participants perceived that their departments have measures in place
to promote gender equality, we used three items that included questions such as “I would
know who to approach if I had concerns about gender equality” or “My department is respon-
sive to concerns about gender equality” (Fig 1C). For both men and women, item means ran-
ged between 3.90 (SD = 2.15) and 5.07 (SD = 1.90) (scores of 3, 4 and 5 correspond to
“Somehow disagree”, “Neither agree nor disagree” and “Somehow agree”, respectively). For
these three items, women perceived that their departments had significantly lower commit-
ment to promote gender equality compared to men (p<0.002, S6 Table).
Overall, these results show that in the Spanish research system men have a more positive
perception about their departments treatment and commitment to gender equality than
women do. Importantly, we found that women felt they are not valued as good leaders by
men.

Gender differences in perceptions of gender equality in the allocation of

tasks and resources
To evaluate whether men and women perceive that the tasks and resources are equally allo-
cated in their departments, 15 tasks and resources were assessed and stratified by: (1) alloca-
tion of markers of esteem (Fig 2A), (2) allocation of professional development resources (Fig
2B) and allocation of academic duties (3) (Fig 2C) (S7 Table).
Compared to men, a larger percentage of women perceived that the recognition of intellec-
tual contributions, invitations to conferences, distribution of office/laboratory space or equip-
ment and appointments to editorships, all markers of esteem, are more easily allocated to men

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763 December 5, 2019 7 / 21

 Perception of gender bias in research institutions

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763 December 5, 2019 8 / 21

 Perception of gender bias in research institutions

Fig 2. Gender differences in perceptions of gender equality in the allocation of tasks and resources related to A)
markers of esteem, B) professional development and C) additional professional duties. The item ‘Distribution of office/
laboratory space or equipment’ refers to both A) markers of esteem and B) professional development. Graphs show
distribution of responses by gender where responses ranged from 1 = “Much easier for a woman” to 7 = “Much easier for a
man”. The neutral value is 4 = “Neither agree nor disagree”. See S4 Table for descriptive statistics and t-test results. Sample
size ranged from n = 1,259 to 1,287 respondents (n = 455 to 467 men and n = 804 to 821 women). Sample sizes for each
question are detailed in S7 Table.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.g002

(Fig 2A), with mean scores between 4.01 (SD = 2.07) and 4.88 (SD = 1.43) (S7 Table). However,
male respondents mostly rated the allocation of these resources as ‘the same for men and
women’, with mean scores between 3.81 (SD = 1.02) and 4.07 (SD = 1.13), Fig 2A and S7
Table).
Similarly, most of the men perceived that the allocation of resources related to professional
development (Fig 2B and S7 Table) are allocated to men and women with similar ease
(M = 3.98, SD = 1.25). However, a larger proportion of female respondents felt that most of
these resources are more easily allocated to men (M = 4.75, SD = 1.46). Although these differ-
ences were subtle, they were statistically significant, with p<0.002 for all of the items individu-
ally and when considered together (S7 Table). The most noticeable differences were found
when asked about promotion to senior posts or access to circles of influence (women:
M = 5.29, SD = 1.57; men: M = 4.24, SD = 1.43; p<0.002, S7 Table). Across all the items, the
response distribution is markedly shifted between women and men. The percentage of women
that think that it is slightly easier, easier or much easier for a man to get these resources ranged
between 24 and 65%, in contrast to a smaller fraction of men with similar opinion, between 6
and 34%. For the different questions, between 50 and 84% of men perceived that professional
development resources are distributed equally (Fig 2).
The results above contrast with the findings in relation to the allocation of academic duties
(Fig 2C). Both women and men perceived that pastoral care roles, or the support provided for
the well-being of students and trainees, are allocated more easily to women and no significant
differences between genders were observed for this category (S7 Table). They also agreed that
the allocation of teaching is more equally distributed (Fig 2C and S7 Table). While there is a
general perception that administrative tasks are more easily allocated to women, women per-
ceived this more strongly (women: M = 3.25, SD = 1.42; men: M = 3.60; SD = 1.19. p<0.002, S7
Table).
Altogether, gender differences were observed for the allocation of all the items referring to
professional development and markers of esteem, where women perceived that these are more
easily allocated to men while men did not perceive a biased distribution to the same extent. On
the contrary, men and women perceived similarly that academic duties (teaching, pastoral
care roles and administrative tasks), which are tasks not directly related to research perfor-
mance, are distributed more easily to women.

Interaction of gender and research area in perceptions of gender equality

We next determined whether these gender differences may vary across research areas. Results
from a two-way ANOVA for gender and research area suggested that overall women and men
differences in gender perception were independent of the research discipline, as no gender-by-
research area interaction was statistically significant (S8–S10 Tables). When we compared how
researchers from different disciplines perceive gender equality in their workplace, we observed
a significant main effect of research area only on the items “In general, men and women are
treated equally in my department” and “Allocation of pastoral care roles”. Compared to other
research areas, women working on law and earth sciences perceived the lowest gender equality

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763 December 5, 2019 9 / 21

 Perception of gender bias in research institutions

regarding the treatment that men and women receive in their departments (S2 Fig). Research-
ers in the areas of maths and physical sciences are the ones perceiving that pastoral care roles
are more easily allocated to women, with mean scores for both women and men of around 2
(i.e. “Easier for a woman”), while law had the most neutral perception, with mean scores above
3 (i.e. “Slightly easier for a woman”) (S3 Fig). It is worth noting that law and earth sciences are
the research areas with the lowest responses and larger samples are needed to reach further
conclusions.

Interaction of gender and position in perceptions of gender equality

To investigate the effect of seniority on perceptions of gender equality, we created four groups
of positions according to their experience level (Table 1): senior researcher, intermediate
career researcher, early career researcher and research student. Gender and position were
included as factors in a two-way ANOVA. Women’s estimates of gender equality were lower
than those of men regardless of seniority, as the interaction between position and gender did
not reach statistical significance for any item (S11–13 Tables). Similar results were obtained
when the interaction was done between age and gender (S11–13 Tables). Only for the item
“receiving positive feedback from management” the effect of gender differed by age (S13
Table)
The only significant main effect of position was found on the items “If I had concerns about
gender equality in my department, I would know who to approach” (S4 Fig), and “Appoint-
ment to editorships” and “Allocation of administrative tasks” (S5 Fig). For all three items,
junior researchers perceived more gender biases in the allocation of these resources than
researchers in more advanced positions.

Interaction of gender and type of centre in perceptions of gender equality

We observed that perceptions of gender equality in departments and in the allocation
of tasks and resources were consistent across research centres, private and public univer-
sities. There were no significant main effects of type of centre, nor any interactions
between gender and type of centre (S14–S16 Tables), suggesting that the previously-
observed gender differences did not vary as a function of the institution where the
respondents work.

Perceptions of gender equality in the Spanish and British academic systems

Overall, results from our survey and from the ASSET 2016 indicate that lower gender equality
was perceived by women researchers working at both Spain and the UK. When all the items
from the category perceptions of gender equality in the allocation of tasks and resources were
considered together, we found no significant differences between countries (S17 Table). In
contrast, when the six items for the category perceptions of gender equality in the department
were jointly assessed, male and female researchers in the UK perceived greater gender equality
than their counterparts in Spain. In both countries, men perceived higher equality in their
departments than women, but country differences were consistent across genders with
p<0.001 (S17 Table).
We then evaluated all the items individually and compared the responses from both sur-
veys. Significant differences in perceptions between participants from Spain and the UK were
observed for both genders (p<0.001) in 13 items as per t-test (S17 Table). The largest differ-
ences were observed for items related to the support provided by the department and the allo-
cation of teaching and pastoral tasks.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763 December 5, 2019 10 / 21

 Perception of gender bias in research institutions

Relative to British respondents, researchers from Spanish institutions perceived greater

equality in the treatment that men and women receive in their departments (p<0.001, S17
Table) (Fig 3A). Conversely, respondents from Spain perceived a lower level of support from
their departments concerning issues of gender equality relative to their British counterparts,
with p<0.001 for the three items (Fig 3B–3D and S17 Table).
For perceptions of gender equality in the allocation of tasks and resources related to profes-
sional development, we observed that differences between Spain and the UK were driven almost
exclusively by female respondents (Fig 4). Women working as researchers in Spain perceived to a
greater extent that it is easier for a man to be allocated tasks and resources related to professional
development such as receiving positive feedback, receipt of mentoring for career decisions, pro-
motion to senior posts, recruitment for academic posts, attention from senior management or
access to informal circles of influence (Fig 4). For all these items, significant differences between
Spain and the UK were observed for female respondents, where the UK-based respondents per-
ceived higher levels of equality compared to their Spanish counterparts (p<0.001).
Women in Spain perceived greater inequality in the recognition of intellectual contribu-
tions than women in the UK did (p<0.001) (Fig 5A), while no significant differences were
observed across countries for other markers of esteem such as invitation to conferences (Fig
5B). Conversely, male Spanish researchers perceived that editorships were more easily allo-
cated to women than British researchers did (p<0.001) (Fig 5C) (S17 Table). Regarding the
allocation of teaching, administrative tasks and pastoral roles, Spain-based researchers per-
ceived that these roles are more easily allocated to women while in the UK these would be
equally allocated to women and men (p<0.001) (Fig 5D–5F and S17 Table). Interestingly,
opposite directions in the gender effect were observed between countries for the allocation of
administrative tasks and pastoral care roles (Fig 5E–5F).
Despite reaching similar conclusions, both studies also highlight significant differences in
gender perception among Spain and the UK. Some of these disparities may arise from inherent
characteristics existing between research systems, however it may also underline areas where
more work is required to promote gender equality.

Discussion
The present study is the first one assessing perception of gender equality and comparing it
across two major European countries. It provides clear and significant evidence that men and
women have a different understanding of the gender gap in academia regardless of the coun-
try, research area, junior or senior position and type of academic institution. Our results show
that women perceive greater gender inequality than men do and encourage the implementa-
tion of measures to increase awareness and address the problem.
Firstly, we evaluated perceptions of gender equality in a sample of 1,295 researchers work-
ing in academic positions in Spain. Estimates of gender equality were lower amongst women
than men, with small to medium effect sizes, and the largest effect sizes being observed for
items related to leadership. Previous research has revealed a systematic, unconscious gender
bias that hinders women’s ascent to senior positions [8–16,27,28]. Despite the considerable
body of objective scientific evidence, data from our survey shows that male researchers per-
ceive equal gender treatment in their departments, equal access to the resources that are neces-
sary for professional development or that can be viewed as markers of esteem and a stronger
commitment from their departments to ensure gender equality. Data from our survey suggests
that gender inequalities previously reported in the Spanish research system [3,19,22] are per-
ceived by women researchers in their daily life in their departments but not by men to the
same extent. To ensure a fair ascent of women in the academic ladder and fair allocation of

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763 December 5, 2019 11 / 21

 Perception of gender bias in research institutions

Fig 3. Perceptions of gender equality in the respondents’ departments in the Spanish and British academic systems. Responses range from 1 =
“Strongly disagree” to 7 = “Strongly agree”. The neutral value is 4 = “Neither agree nor disagree”. Spanish sample size ranged from 1,297 to 1,303
respondents (n = 467 to 468 men and n = 817 to 826 women). British sample size ranged from 4,804 to 4,862 respondents (n = from 2,466 to 2,491 men
and n = from 2,338 to 2,372 women). Sample sizes for each question, country and gender are detailed in S17 Table.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.g003

resources, it seems necessary that those who occupy senior positions, who are mostly men,
have a fair perception of gender inequality.
No significant interactions were observed between academic position or age and gender in
our analyses, indicating that men and women of varying ages and seniority shared similar

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763 December 5, 2019 12 / 21

 Perception of gender bias in research institutions

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763 December 5, 2019 13 / 21

 Perception of gender bias in research institutions

Fig 4. Perceptions of gender equality in the allocation of tasks and resources in the Spanish and British academic systems: professional
development. Responses range from 1 = “Much easier for women” to 7 = “Much easier for men”. Spanish sample size ranged from n = 1,279
to 1,287 (n = 46 to 470 men and n = 810 to 827 women). British sample size ranged from 4,814 to 4,824 respondents (n = from 2,467 to 2,477
men and n = from 2,342 to 2,349 women). Sample sizes for each question, country and gender are detailed in S17 Table.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.g004

feelings regarding gender equality. Gender inequality has often been explained by a genera-
tional effect [29,30], and such an effect was widely cited by respondents when given the option
to add comments in our survey (data not shown). These opinions are consistent with reports
claiming that women in academia no longer face systematic discrimination [29,30]. However,
contrary to this view, EU reports show only a modest increase in the number of women reach-
ing senior positions in recent years [2], while in Spain, the proportion of women occupying
senior positions did not change between 2012 and 2017 [3,19]. Results from this survey show
that a generational change in perception, which is necessary to reach equality, is not happening
in the new generations. Therefore, our data do not support a scenario where perception of gen-
der bias will change over time without a need for intervention.
Our results agree to a large extent with those obtained in the ASSET 2016. Male researchers
in both the UK and Spain perceived greater gender equality in their departments compared to
female researchers. Interestingly, our analyses also highlighted some key differences in percep-
tions between the two countries, especially in perceptions related to gender equality in the
workplace. While researchers in Spain felt that women and men are treated more equally in
the workplace than researchers in the UK did, British departments were perceived as more
committed, concerned and responsive to matters of gender equality. Overall perception on the
allocation of tasks and resources was more similar between countries, but female respondents
based in Spain perceived greater inequality regarding the allocation of resources related to pro-
fessional development than the UK-based female respondents, while male respondents from
both countries perceived no gender inequality. In the UK, the representation of women in the
academic system (44.0%) is slightly higher than in Spain (41.0%) and in the EU average
(40.8%) [2]. On the contrary, for the representation of women in senior positions, Spain does
better, with 21.0% compared to only 17.5% in the UK, which is far from the EU average, 20.9%
[2]. We could hypothesize that higher representation of women in senior positions results in
greater perceptions of equality among researchers working in Spain. This contrasts with a
more positive perception in terms of commitment and support at the workplace in the UK
and the resources allocated to professional development.
The UK has been a pioneer in the implementation of awards to encourage and recognise
commitment of the institutions to advance the careers of women, such as the Athena SWAN
Awards, established by the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU) in 2005. The differences that
researchers in Spain and in the UK perceive in terms of institutional support and allocation of
resources could be explained by the existence of these measures. Recent evaluations of this pro-
gram have acknowledged that its implementation has resulted in structural and cultural
changes as well as in an effort to advance gender equality in research institutions in the UK
[31–33].
The observation of large country differences in the allocation of pastoral care roles and
administrative tasks is of special interest. The allocation of these duties has been associated
with high workload and low reward [34]. Therefore, some of these differences may arise from
the inherent characteristics of both research systems, where the recognition of pastoral roles
may not be equally valued. Initiatives such as Athena Swan in the UK, that recognize and value
these roles, have potentially led to a more equal distribution in this country.
In the last few years, multiple countries have adopted policies to increment the participation
of women in science and to foster their career progression. The Horizon 2020 programme in

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763 December 5, 2019 14 / 21

 Perception of gender bias in research institutions

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763 December 5, 2019 15 / 21

 Perception of gender bias in research institutions

Fig 5. Perceptions of gender equality in the allocation of tasks and resources in the Spanish and British academic systems: markers of esteem
(A-C) and additional professional duties (D-F). Responses range from 1 = “Much easier for women” to 7 = “Much easier for men”. Spanish sample
size ranged from n = 1,259 to 1,286 respondents (n = 455 to 466 men and n = 804 to 820 women). British sample size ranged from 4,722 to 4,813
respondents (n = from 2,433 to 2,476 men and n = from 2,289 to 2,346 women). Sample sizes for each question, country and gender are detailed in
S17 Table.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763.g005

Europe has incorporated gender in its research and innovation strategy by promoting gender
balance in research teams and in decision-making panels and advisory groups, as well as pro-
viding funds for initiatives that support gender balance [35]. In the US, the National Science
Foundation has invested over $270M to help higher education and STEM-related organiza-
tions to support ADVANCE (Organizational Change for Gender Equity in STEM Academic
Professions) projects that aim to increase the representation of women in science [36]. In the
UK, the Athena SWAN Charter recognises the commitment of academic organisations to gen-
der equality [23], in particular where active policies and specific programmes have been
adopted. Gender bias influence decision-making [4,37], therefore how gender biases are per-
ceived by those designing, implementing and assessing these and future measures is a critical
aspect to take into consideration [38,39]. At the individual level, perceptions are likely to be
shaped during childhood, and working with children to eliminate stereotypes may help elimi-
nating women and men differences in perception from early on [40]. Studies in the social psy-
chology field have shown that alerting about the existence of a certain bias, may reduce that
bias [41–43]. Therefore, increasing self-awareness in adulthood through gender bias and
unconscious bias workshops could also help shaping perceptions [44]. It is important to note,
that identifying the source of bias is critical for an effective intervention [42] and that effective
changes require more than a one-off diversity training [45]. More importantly, institutions
need to put in place evidence-based, data-driven measures to ensure that perceptions do not
have a negative impact in women’s careers progression [46]. Only by applying policy changes
and action plans at multiple levels, we will be able to address and remove institutional, organi-
sational, structural and systemic barriers to full gender equality in research.
The ASSET 2016 provided a valuable resource to evaluate perceptions of gender equality in
British STEMM. The current survey represents a further attempt to robustly evaluate such per-
ceptions in a representative sample from a different country, although it was limited by an
unequal gender distribution, whereby there were twice as many female as male respondents.
In addition, the survey was limited to researchers working in universities (public and private
universities) and public research centres. Future efforts to better define policies that benefit the
largest number of people should include initiatives that encourage the participation and sup-
port of men in gender equality surveys, as well as extending surveys to researchers in the pri-
vate sector.
The present study represents the first formal comparison of men and women perceptions
of gender equality between two European countries. Our data on the researchers based in
Spanish institutions largely agree with the observations of the British ASSET 2016, while
highlighting important differences in gender perceptions between the two research systems.
This and future international surveys should aid the design and implementation of effective
measures to drive a cultural change and to close the gender gap in research, by increasing our
understanding of gender perceptions in academic environments.

Supporting information
S1 Appendix. Responses “Perceptions in Gender Equality”.
(XLSX)

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763 December 5, 2019 16 / 21

 Perception of gender bias in research institutions

S2 Appendix. Psychometric properties of the survey.

(PDF)
S1 Fig. A) Loading plot of survey where first component is represented vs second component. B)
Scree plot of the 21 items included in this analysis. As the number of components increases, the var-
iance (within-group sum of squares) decreases. The elbow at two/three clusters represents the most
parsimonious balance between minimum number of clusters that explain most of the variance.
(PDF)
S2 Fig. Research area by gender interaction in the perception of gender equality in depart-
ments. Item represented in the figure corresponds to “In general, men and women are treated
equally in my department”. Graph shows means by gender ranging from 1 =“Strongly dis-
agree” to 7 = “Strongly agree”. Sample size N = 1,293 (N = 468 men and N = 825 women).
(PDF)
S3 Fig. Research area by gender interaction in the perception of gender equality in the allo-
cation of pastoral care roles. Figure represents the responses to perceptions of gender equality
in the “allocation of pastoral care roles” and shows means by gender ranging from 1 =“Much
easier for women” to 7 = “Much easier for men”. Sample size N = 1,259 (N = 455 men and
N = 804 women).
(PDF)
S4 Fig. Position by gender interaction in the perception of gender equality in departments.
Item represented in the figure corresponds to “If I had concerns about gender equality in my depart-
ment, I would know who to approach” and shows means by gender ranging from 1 =“Strongly dis-
agree” to 7 = “Strongly agree”. Sample size N = 1,291 (N = 468 men and N = 823 women).
(PDF)
S5 Fig. Position by gender interaction in the perception of gender equality in the allocation
of tasks and resources. A) Appointments to editorships and B) Allocation of administrative
tasks. Graph shows means by gender ranging from 1 =“Much easier for a woman” to 7 =
“Much easier for a man”. Sample size N = 1,275 to 1,279 (N = from 462 to 463 men and
N = from 813 to 816 women).
(PDF)
S1 Table. Description of the questions in the survey and variable names.
(PDF)
S2 Table. Comparison between responses from female participants that did not complete
the survey (excluded respondents) and participants included in the analysis (respondents
that completed the survey).
(PDF)
S3 Table. Comparison between responses from male participants that did not complete
the survey (excluded respondents) and participants included in the analysis (respondents
that completed the survey).
(PDF)
S4 Table. List of the institutions represented in the sample analysed.
(PDF)
S5 Table. Cronbach alpha coefficients for each item and whole category.
(PDF)

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763 December 5, 2019 17 / 21

 Perception of gender bias in research institutions

S6 Table. Descriptive and t-tests results for perceptions of gender equality in departments.
“sd” = standard deviation. “N” = sample size. “df” = degrees of freedom. “95CI” = 95% Confi-
dence intervals.
(PDF)
S7 Table. Descriptive and t-tests results for perceptions of gender equality in the allocation
of tasks and resources. “sd” = standard deviation. “N” = sample size. “df” = degrees of free-
dom. “95CI” = 95% Confidence intervals.
(PDF)
S8 Table. Research area variable names, sample size for each research area and gender dis-
tribution by research area.
(PDF)
S9 Table. Interaction analysis of gender by research area in perceptions of gender equality
in departments. “Df” = degrees of freedom. “Sum Sq” = Total sum of squares. “Mean Sq” =
Mean Squares.
(PDF)
S10 Table. Interaction analysis of gender by research area in the perceptions of gender
equality in the allocation of tasks and resources. “Df” = degrees of freedom. “Sum Sq” =
Total sum of squares. “Mean Sq” = Mean Squares.
(PDF)
S11 Table. Position variable names, sample size for each position and gender distribution
by position.
(PDF)
S12 Table. Interaction analysis of gender by position in the perceptions of gender equality
in departments. “Df” = degrees of freedom. “Sum Sq” = total sum of squares. “Mean Sq” =
Mean Squares.
(PDF)
S13 Table. Interaction of gender by position in the perceptions of gender equality in alloca-
tion of tasks and resources. “Df” = degrees of freedom. “Sum Sq” = total sum of squares.
“Mean Sq” = mean Squares.
(PDF)
S14 Table. Type of institution variable names, sample size for each type of institution and
gender distribution.
(PDF)
S15 Table. Interaction analysis of gender by type of institution in the perceptions of gender
equality in departments. “Df” = degrees of freedom. “Sum Sq” = total sum of squares. “Mean
Sq” = mean Squares.
(PDF)
S16 Table. Interaction analysis of gender by type of institution in the perceptions of gender
equality in allocation of tasks and resources. “Df” = degrees of freedom. “Sum Sq” = Total
sum of squares. “Mean Sq” = Mean Squares.
(PDF)
S17 Table. Comparison of responses between Spain vs the United Kingdom-based
researchers. “N” = Sample size, “M” = mean, “SD” = Standard deviation, “df” = degrees of

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763 December 5, 2019 18 / 21

 Perception of gender bias in research institutions

freedom. Note: The questions “women are perceived as good leaders by women/men” from
the Spain based questionnaire are not reported in this analysis, as no equivalent questions
were available in ASSET 2016. Significance declared at Bonferroni corrected threshold
p = 0.001.
(PDF)

Acknowledgments
We thank all members of the Wom = n Equity & Research committee of SRUK/CERU—espe-
cially Diego Alonso and Nerea Irigoyen-, members of the Board of Directors of SRUK/CERU
-especially Javier Escudero and Rocio Gaudioso- as well as David Pritchett, Caroline Brennan,
Kristin Hadfield, Elke Vlemincx, Frederike Beyer, Eulalia Perez Sedeño and Pavel Ovseiko for
reviewing the manuscript, helpful comments and discussion. We thank the Spanish universi-
ties, scientific societies and research institutes that distributed the survey, as well as all the
researchers who took the time to complete it. This work was possible thanks to the previous
work done in the ASSET 2016, and we thank Amanda Aldercotte from the Equality Challenge
Unit for sharing data that enabled comparisons between our surveys.

Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Judit Garcı́a-González, Patricia Forcén, Maria Jimenez-Sanchez.
Formal analysis: Judit Garcı́a-González, Patricia Forcén.
Methodology: Judit Garcı́a-González, Patricia Forcén.
Supervision: Maria Jimenez-Sanchez.
Visualization: Judit Garcı́a-González.
Writing – original draft: Judit Garcı́a-González, Maria Jimenez-Sanchez.
Writing – review & editing: Judit Garcı́a-González, Patricia Forcén, Maria Jimenez-Sanchez.

References
1. UNESCO, Schlegel F, editors. UNESCO science report: towards 2030. Paris: UNESCO Publ; 2015.
794 p. (UNESCO science report).
2. Europäische Kommission, editor. She figures 2015. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European
Union; 2016. 217 p.
3. ana.guillamon_378. Cientı́ficas en cifras 2015 [Internet]. FECYT. 2017 [cited 2018 Nov 17]. Available
from: https://www.fecyt.es/es/publicacion/cientificas-en-cifras-2015
4. van den Brink M, Benschop Y. Gender practices in the construction of academic excellence: Sheep
with five legs. Organization. 2012 Jul 1; 19(4):507–24.
5. Smyth FL, Nosek BA. On the gender-science stereotypes held by scientists: explicit accord with gen-
der-ratios, implicit accord with scientific identity. Front Psychol. 2015; 6:415. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fpsyg.2015.00415 PMID: 25964765
6. Stereotypes About Gender and Science: Women 6¼ Scientists—Linda L. Carli, Laila Alawa, YoonAh
Lee, Bei Zhao, Elaine Kim, 2016 [Internet]. [cited 2019 Mar 16]. Available from: https://journals.
sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0361684315622645
7. Leslie S-J, Cimpian A, Meyer M, Freeland E. Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions
across academic disciplines. Science. 2015 Jan 16; 347(6219):262–5. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.
1261375 PMID: 25593183
8. Witteman HO, Hendricks M, Straus S, Tannenbaum C. Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the appli-
cant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency. Lancet. 2019 09; 393
(10171):531–40.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763 December 5, 2019 19 / 21

 Perception of gender bias in research institutions

9. Casadevall A, Handelsman J. The presence of female conveners correlates with a higher proportion of
female speakers at scientific symposia. MBio. 2014 Jan 7; 5(1):e00846–00813. https://doi.org/10.1128/
mBio.00846-13 PMID: 24399856
10. Klein RS, Voskuhl R, Segal BM, Dittel BN, Lane TE, Bethea JR, et al. Speaking out about gender imbal-
ance in invited speakers improves diversity. Nat Immunol. 2017 18; 18(5):475–8.
11. Popejoy AB, Cadwalader EL, Herbers JM. Disproportionate Awards for Women in Disciplinary Socie-
ties. In: Gender Transformation in the Academy [Internet]. Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2014
[cited 2019 Mar 16]. p. 243–63. (Advances in Gender Research; vol. 19). Available from: https://www.
emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/S1529-212620140000019011
12. Lincoln AE, Pincus SH, Leboy PS. Scholars’ awards go mainly to men. Nature. 2011 Jan 27; 469
(7331):472.
13. Cho AH, Johnson SA, Schuman CE, Adler JM, Gonzalez O, Graves SJ, et al. Women are underrepre-
sented on the editorial boards of journals in environmental biology and natural resource management.
PeerJ. 2014; 2:e542. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.542 PMID: 25177537
14. Larivière V, Ni C, Gingras Y, Cronin B, Sugimoto CR. Bibliometrics: global gender disparities in science.
Nature. 2013 Dec 12; 504(7479):211–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/504211a PMID: 24350369
15. Lerback J, Hanson B. Journals invite too few women to referee. Nature. 2017 25; 541(7638):455–7.
https://doi.org/10.1038/541455a PMID: 28128272
16. Removing Barriers: Women in Academic Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: NASPA
Journal About Women in Higher Education: Vol 1, No 1 [Internet]. [cited 2019 Mar 16]. Available from:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.2202/1940-7890.1020
17. Handley IM, Brown ER, Moss-Racusin CA, Smith JL. Quality of evidence revealing subtle gender
biases in science is in the eye of the beholder. PNAS. 2015 Oct 27; 112(43):13201–6. https://doi.org/
10.1073/pnas.1510649112 PMID: 26460001
18. Ganley CM, George CE, Cimpian JR, Makowski MB. Gender Equity in College Majors: Looking Beyond
the STEM/Non-STEM Dichotomy for Answers Regarding Female Participation. American Educational
Research Journal. 2018 Jun 1; 55(3):453–87.
19. Cientificas_cifras_2017.pdf [Internet]. [cited 2019 Mar 16]. Available from: http://www.ciencia.gob.es/
stfls/MICINN/Ministerio/FICHEROS/UMYC/Cientificas_cifras_2017.pdf
20. Equality Challenge Unit ASSET 2016—Equality Challenge Unit [Internet]. [cited 2018 Nov 17]. Available
from: https://www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/asset-2016/
21. Home [Internet]. Equality Challenge Unit. [cited 2019 Mar 16]. Available from: https://www.ecu.ac.uk/
22. informes CMYC—csic.es [Internet]. [cited 2018 Nov 17]. Available from: http://www.csic.es/informes-
cmyc
23. Athena SWAN Charter [Internet]. Equality Challenge Unit. [cited 2019 Mar 16]. Available from: https://
www.ecu.ac.uk/equality-charters/athena-swan/
24. Public Research Organizations [Internet]. EURAXESS. 2018 [cited 2019 Aug 10]. Available from:
https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/spain/science-spain/public-research-organizations
25. Santos JRA. Cronbach’s Alpha: A Tool for Assessing the Reliability of Scales. Journal of Extension
[Internet]. 1999 Apr [cited 2018 Dec 10]; 37(2). Available from: https://www.joe.org/joe/1999april/tt3.
php
26. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992 Jul; 112(1):155–9. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.
112.1.155 PMID: 19565683
27. O’Meara K, Stromquist NP. Faculty Peer Networks: Role and Relevance in Advancing Agency and
Gender Equity. Gender and Education. 2015; 27(3):338–58.
28. Helmer M, Schottdorf M, Neef A, Battaglia D. Gender bias in scholarly peer review. Elife. 2017 21;6.
29. Ceci SJ, Williams WM. Understanding current causes of women’s underrepresentation in science. Proc
Natl Acad Sci USA. 2011 Feb 22; 108(8):3157–62. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1014871108 PMID:
21300892
30. Williams WM, Ceci SJ. National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM
tenure track. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015 Apr 28; 112(17):5360–5. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.
1418878112 PMID: 25870272
31. Barrett PS, Barrett LC. Promoting positive gender outcomes in higher education through active work-
load management [Internet]. Salford: University of Salford; 2013. Available from: http://usir.salford.ac.
uk/id/eprint/29489/
32. Caffrey L, Wyatt D, Fudge N, Mattingley H, Williamson C, McKevitt C. Gender equity programmes in
academic medicine: a realist evaluation approach to Athena SWAN processes. BMJ Open. 2016 08; 6
(9):e012090.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763 December 5, 2019 20 / 21

 Perception of gender bias in research institutions

33. Ovseiko PV, Chapple A, Edmunds LD, Ziebland S. Advancing gender equality through the Athena
SWAN Charter for Women in Science: an exploratory study of women’s and men’s perceptions. Health
Res Policy Syst. 2017 Feb 21; 15(1):12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-017-0177-9 PMID: 28222735
34. GENDER-NET analysis report: award schemes, gender equality and structural change [Internet].
Equality Challenge Unit. [cited 2019 Mar 16]. Available from: https://www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/
gender-net-analysis-report-award-schemes-gender/
35. kamraro. Promoting Gender Equality in Research and Innovation [Internet]. Horizon 2020—European
Commission. 2014 [cited 2019 Mar 16]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/
en/h2020-section/promoting-gender-equality-research-and-innovation
36. ADVANCE at a Glance | NSF—National Science Foundation [Internet]. [cited 2019 Mar 16]. Available
from: https://www.nsf.gov/crssprgm/advance/
37. Koch AJ, D’Mello SD, Sackett PR. A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and bias in experimental sim-
ulations of employment decision making. J Appl Psychol. 2015 Jan; 100(1):128–61. https://doi.org/10.
1037/a0036734 PMID: 24865576
38. Kray L. Gender Bias in Negotiators’ Ethical Decision Making. 2011 Mar 30 [cited 2019 Mar 16]; Avail-
able from: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1639379n#main
39. Gender Politics and Public Policy Making: Prospects for Advancing Gender Equality—ScienceDirect
[Internet]. [cited 2019 Mar 16]. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/
S1449403505700679
40. Aina OE, Cameron PA. Why Does Gender Matter? Counteracting Stereotypes with Young Children.
Dimensions of Early Childhood. 2011; 39(3):11–20.
41. Bezrukova K, Spell CS, Perry JL, Jehn KA. A meta-analytical integration of over 40 years of research
on diversity training evaluation. Psychol Bull. 2016; 142(11):1227–74. https://doi.org/10.1037/
bul0000067 PMID: 27618543
42. Axt JR, Casola G, Nosek BA. Reducing Social Judgment Biases May Require Identifying the Potential
Source of Bias. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2019 Aug; 45(8):1232–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0146167218814003 PMID: 30520340
43. Peterson DAM, Biederman LA, Andersen D, Ditonto TM, Roe K. Mitigating gender bias in student evalu-
ations of teaching. PLoS ONE. 2019; 14(5):e0216241. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216241
PMID: 31091292
44. Pritlove C, Juando-Prats C, Ala-Leppilampi K, Parsons JA. The good, the bad, and the ugly of implicit
bias. Lancet. 2019 09; 393(10171):502–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32267-0 PMID:
30739671
45. Chang EH, Milkman KL, Gromet DM, Rebele RW, Massey C, Duckworth AL, et al. The mixed effects of
online diversity training. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2019 Apr 16; 116(16):7778–83. https://doi.org/10.
1073/pnas.1816076116 PMID: 30936313
46. Coe IR, Wiley R, Bekker L-G. Organisational best practices towards gender equality in science and
medicine. Lancet. 2019 09; 393(10171):587–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)33188-X
PMID: 30739694

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0225763 December 5, 2019 21 / 21